Handling the Handlers

Mar 1, 2001

Health
and Safety

Handling the Handlers

By Richard Rowe

March 2001

With one eye on industry outsourcing trends, the Health and Safety Executive
in the U.K. is asking airlines to better monitor the health and safety performance
of their growing number of contractors. Richard Rowe reports.

Year

Fatal and Major

Over 3 Day

Total number of accidents

1997 to 1998

152

1,112

1,264

1998 to 1999

166

1,164

1,330

1999 to 2000 (provisional)

154

1,241

1,395

The U.K.’s powerful Health and Safety Executive (HSE), a government agency charged with controlling the risk to people from work activities, is spearheading a drive aimed at encouraging the air
transport industry to improve its health and safety record.

According to the HSE, the air transport industry compares
poorly with other so-called high-risk occupations. Ramp workers, it says, are
more likely to be seriously injured than agricultural workers and are at almost
the same risk of minor injuries as those in the mining industry.

With this in mind, the HSE published new guidance in
December aimed at improving health and safety considerations specifically during
aircraft turnround. The document, "Aircraft Turnround: A guide for airport
and aerodrome operators, airlines and service providers on achieving control,
co-operation and co-ordination (HSG209)" includes advice on the roles and
responsibilities of the companies involved, the selection, control and monitoring
of contractors, and the organization of the turnround itself.

The guidance is a key element in an ongoing HSE initiative
that has seen the agency hammer home its message at industry conferences, as
well as visits to companies by HSE inspectors.

"Whilst the U.K. has an enviable record of aircraft safety,
the health and safety of those working around the aircraft is a grave cause
for concern," according to Bob Meldrum, Head of the HSE's Docks, Water
and Air Transport Unit. "The industry is not able to rely solely on 'hardware'
solutions to solve its safety problems and so needs to rely on safe systems
of work. Consequently, it is vital that these are both adequate and robust and
that management ensures that they are implemented and maintained."

The fact remains that serious accidents during aircraft
turnround are all too common. The HSE cites one instance where a baggage truck
reversed over a fuel hydrant pit, severing the coupling. Several thousand liters
of fuel were spilled, workers and aircraft were doused in fuel, and the operation
of the airport was badly affected.

Elsewhere, a ramp worker suffered a broken leg when he
was trapped between a reversing cargo loader and a baggage dolly. The loader
was routinely used to "shuttle" baggage from dollies to the aircraft.
It was not designed for the job and offered poor visibility for the driver.
However, as the HSE discovered, this was the only way to get the job done because
the operation had not been properly planned. With the congested area at the
rear of the aircraft, there was no space to bring the dollies into the right
position for the work to be carried out safely.

With this in mind, the guidelines are designed to provide
an effective framework encouraging airlines, handling agents, and airport operators
to work in partnership to reduce the risks faced by staff.

The agency’s guidance states that companies that employ
contractors to undertake all or part of the operation should satisfy themselves
that the organizations in question can carry out the turnround safely. The HSE
stresses the need for operations to be planned and supervised. The plan should
be written down, and the supervisor (either a handling agent or some other appointed
person or company) should have sufficient authority to control the activities
around the aircraft, says the HSE.

All parties need to cooperate and coordinate their activities
during turnround. Each company involved must assess and control the risks its
activities pose to others; this includes the airlines, airport operator and
the ground handlers.

As operators know, however, theory and reality are not
always closely related, particularly in such a frantic workplace. True, airlines
that outsource certain handling operations usually have trained personnel on
hand to supervise the operations, both from the turnround and health and safety
standpoint. However, problems are inherent as long as a supervisor is also responsible
for on-time performance. Commercial pressures often override considerations
for health and safety.

"Each handler has a copy of this manual and will
be expected to follow it when handling our aircraft. We also audit training
records to ensure that all of the handling agent’s staff have received suitable
training for their job function. We also audit, and hold the agent responsible
for, any sub-contracted services. This is covered reasonably well in the IATA
SGHA (Standard Ground Handling Agreement) and, in most cases, will insist that
such services are included in the contract with the handling agent for that
location."

However, he admits, "At the end of the day we must
always rely on the integrity of the handling agent to provide not only the necessary
training and equipment, but also a suitable awareness to its staff."

In the U.K., DHL has "only two reputable agents
working for us," and self-handles elsewhere. "However, if the U.K.
HSE initiative is taken up by other European countries, then we will be required
to increase our expenditure on both staff and resources to reduce our exposure
to possible litigation."

Millett feels that there should either be a requirement
for handling agents to be "licensed" by the local aviation/HSE authorities,
or that the airport company should take a "police" role to ensure
that handling agents provide proof of competency and acceptable safety practice
which should then be monitored by that authority. He does not believe that this
completely removes an airline’s responsibility, but rather "levels the
playing field when looking for a suitable agent at an airport."

The International Air Transport Association (IATA), specifically
through its Airside Safety Group, sees its mission as very similar to the HSE.
"IATA encourages members to comply with their country’s safety and health
legislation," said Graciella Torrellas, Secretary of the Airside Safety
Group. "The work performed by the Airside Safety Group, jointly with ATA,
ACI and EAGOSH, as published in the Airport Handling Manual (AHM), is the most
important contributor to tackle this issue."

IATA’s AHM helps steer service providers and airlines
along the same path, and expertise from both sectors is integrated into the
Airside Safety Group.

IATA believes that checks and balances are already in
place on both sides of the fence. After all, every organization is required
to conform to the safety and health legislation of the country they work in,
while the implementation of Service Delivery Standards has helped the industry
identify and measure the standards and quality of the services being provided.

IATA’s Airport Handling Quality Audit provides guidelines
by which air carriers can monitor ground handling performance. As a result of
these audits, airlines and service providers can identify and assume accountability
for certain issues such as ensuring safety before schedule, non-enforcement
of standard operating procedures, inconsistency in ramp training, plus inadequate
levels of supervision, poor personnel recruitment, and general lack of safety
culture on the ramp.

Service providers also raise several legitimate issues.
These include customer performance requirements that influence the manner in
which ramp operations are conducted, management expectations when changes occur
in the operation, and time pressures that influence the speed of the operation.

Even more fundamental is the actual physical ability
of people to perform the work in the times demanded by airline customers. The
concern of some service providers over whether or not people can meet those
demands is perhaps something else the HSE should explore with the airline community.

In the rush for competitive advantage, is the industry
simply asking too much of its people?